The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20101018Comments.pdfLOVIGER I KAUF LL 825 NE Mllltnomah . Suite 925 Portand, OR 97232-2150 office (503) 230-7715 fax (503) 972-2921 Jeff S. LoviLo~.com October 15,2010 VI FEDERA EXPRESS OVERNIGHT DEUVERY ~c.=g-iJean D. Jewell, Secretary Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W Washington Street PO Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0074 co :i::9Re: Case No. IPC-E-1O-22 - IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A FIRM ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT WITH YELLOWSTONE POWER, INC. FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY w Dear Ms. Jewell: Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned docket are an original and seven (7) copies of ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S COMMENTS. An extra copy of this cover letter is enclosed. Please date stamp the extra copy and retur it to me in the envelope provided. Than you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, -:tinger -- cc: IPC-E-I0-22 Service List Enclosures Mark C. Moench Daniel E. Solander 201 S. Main, Suite 2300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone (801) 220-4014 Fax: (801) 220-3299 mark.moench0lpacificorp.com danel.solander0lpacificorp.com ni:",çr"" ,i- \.J L~ Z6lMJCl l 8 AM 10: 3' Jeffrey S. Lovinger Kenneth E. Kaufman Lovinger Kaufman LLP 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925 Portland, Oregon 97232 Telephone: (503) 230-7715 Fax: (503) 972-2921 10vinger0llklaw.com kaufman0llklaw.com Attorneys for PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power BEFORE TIl IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR APPROVAL ) OF A FIRM ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT ) WITH YELLOWSTONE POWER, INC. FOR ) THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC )ENERGY ) ) ) CASE NO. IPC-E-I0-22 COMMENTS OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER COMES NOW, PacifiCorp, d//a Rocky Mountain Power ("Rocky Mountain Power"), and in response to the Notice of Reply Comment Deadline issued in the above- captioned proceeding on October 5, 2010, submits the following comments. Under PURPA, Rocky Mountain Power is required to purchase qualifying facility (QF) output at avoided cost rates established by the Commission. Rocky Mountain Power is also curently defending a complaint by a QF developer who alleges that the Commission should allow for grandfathered treatment of avoided cost rates. Rocky COMMENTS OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 1 Mountain Power therefore has an interest II how the Commission applies its grandfathering criteria. Commission Staff has summarzed the Commission's treatment of grandfathered rates as follows: (T)he Commission (has) determined and the Idaho Supreme Cour (has) affirmed, certain criteria that a QF developer must satisfy in order to establish an entitlement to sell energy at a rate other than the curent published avoided cost rate. The first criteria that would qualify a paricular generating facility to receive a superseded rate requires that the developer have executed a power sales agreement with the utility at the rate in question before a successor rate becomes effective. If the QF canot meet the first criteria, the second criteria requires that prior to the new rates' effective date, the QF developer must have filed a meritorious complaint alleging that the project was sufficiently matue and far enough along in the contracting process that but for the conduct of the utility company, the developer would have been able to sign a contract with the utilty containing the superceded rates. Staff Comments at 3. Rocky Mountain Power agrees with Stafts characterization of the Commission's grandfathering criteria. In order to qualify for grandfathered rates under these criteria, a QF must (a) obtain a fully executed power sales agreement before the rate change; or (b) before the rate changes, fie with the Commission a meritorious complaint alleging that but for the utility's improper conduct the QF would have secured a power sales contract before the rate changed. Rocky Mountain Power supports these criteria and urges the Commission to retain them. The Commission's grandfathering criteria establish a clear and easily understood test for when a QF is entitled to grandfathered rates. Such a "bright line" test benefits ratepayers, QF developers, and regulated utilties by setting clear standards and expectations. This allows all paries to make decisions about QF contracts with confdence that they can accurately determine whether a QF COMMENTS OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 2 qualifies for a rate other than the curent published avoided cost rate and therefore allows paries to avoid costly litigation. The existing criteria for grandfathering also ensure compliance with PURP A by ensuring that Idaho's regulated electric utilities and their ratepayers do not pay more than avoided cost for QF output. Commission Staff has suggested that the facts of the Yellowstone case may justify an exception to the grandfathering criteria: Staff believes that this case presents a unique set of facts that permit the Commission to look beyond the established criteria applied in other recent requests to grandfather the rates of Order No. 30744 and consider other aspects such as the strong public interest and impact of allowing a grandfathered rate. Staff Comments at 6. Rocky Mountain Power expresses no opinion whether, under the facts of this case, the Commission should look beyond the established criteria and create an exception to the general grandfathering rule. If the Commission decides to establish an exception to its existing grandfathering criteria, Rocky Mountain Power urges the Commission to carefully limit any such exception to prevent it from superseding the rule. Specifically, the Commission could refuse to entertain an exception to the basic grandfathering criteria unless the utility and the QF developer agree that they settled all material terms of their power purchase agreement prior to the rate change. Satisfying ths prerequisite would be necessar but not suffcient to justify an exception. If the prerequisite is satisfied, the Commission could then consider whether the unique facts of a given case justify an exception to the basic grandfathering rule. Without such a prerequisite, any exception seems likely, in PacifiCorp's judgment, to undercut the clarty and settled expectations established by the Commission's prior orders. COMMENTS OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 3 DATED this l~ day of October, 2010. COMMENTS OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - 4 Mark C. Moench Daniel Solander Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Power CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on the 15th day of October, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing ROCKY MOUNTAINPOWER'S COMMENTS in Case No. IPC-E-IO-22 on the following named persons/entities by Federal Express Overnight Delivery, properly addressed with postage prepaid, and electronic mail: Mark C. Moench Daniel E. Solander Rocky Mountain Power 201 South Main Street, Suìte 2300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 mark.moench(fpacificorp.com daniel.solander(fpacificorp.com (FedEx Overnight Delivery) Donovan E..Walker, Senior Counsel Lisa Nordstrom, Lead Counsel Idaho Power Company 1221 WestIdaho Street Boise, ID 83707 dwalkertIidahopower.com Inordstrom(fidahopower.com (FedEx Overnight Delivery) Jean Jewell Commission Secretar Idaho Public Utilties Commission 472 West Washington Street Boise, ID 83702 jean. j ewell(fpuc.idaho. gov (FedEx Overnight Delivery) Randy C. Allphin Energy Contract Administrator Idaho Power Company 1221 West Idaho Street Boise, Idaho 83707 rallphin(fidahopower.com (FedEx Overnight Delivery) Krstine Sasser Deputy Attorney General Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 West Washington Street Boise,ID 83702 kristine.sasser(fpuc.idaho. gov (FedEx Overnight Delivery) Dean J. Miler Chas F. McDevitt McDevitt & Miler LLP 420 West Banock Street Boise, ID 83702 j oe(fmcdevitt-miler.com (FedEx Overnight Delivery) Dick Vinson Yellowstone Power, Inc. 115 Broad Street Thompson Falls, MT 59873 dicktIblackfoot.net (FedEx Overnight Delivery) DATED ths ~ day of October, 2010. LOVINGER KAUFMANN LLP Linger fì Rocky Mountain Power